Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been provided below. Applicant’s arguments submitted on 10/28/2025 are thus moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “a plurality of strip-shaped slot areas”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites “a plurality of strip-shaped slot areas”. Please amend the claim to reflect proper antecedent basis for clarification purposes.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, please amend the claim to reflect the proper quantity of limiting members, i.e. “the limiting member” should be amended to read, for example, “each of the plurality of limiting members” or other equivalent language.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, please amend the claim to reflect the proper quantity of strip-shaped slot areas, i.e. “the strip-shaped slot area” should be amended to read, for example “each of the plurality of strip shaped slot areas”.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenman (US 6,048,257) in view of Cramer (US 7,048,618).
Regarding claim 1, Greenman (US 6048257) discloses a grinding sander (see Abstract), comprising:
a sanding plate configured to move in an operation state (see Figures 10 and 11, as well as holder 600 and reciprocating unit 400; see movement disclosed in Col. 3, lines 21-30); and
a plurality of limiting members disposed on a surface of the sanding plate to define a plurality of strip-shaped slot areas (see limiting members LM in Reference Drawing 1, annotated Figure 13, as well as recesses 865; see also Figures 10-13, as well as Col. 9, lines 4-35),
wherein each strip-shaped slot area (865) is defined to allow at least one strip-shaped element (see abrasive elements 830) to be correspondingly mounted therein to effect sanding of a surface of an article via the strip-shaped element under the movement of the sanding plate (see Col. 9, lines 21-35 and 45-57).
While Greenman describes abrasive paper elements in the context of the background art in Col. 1, lines 39-45 and 59-62, and discloses that each abrasive element (830) may be made of a layer of abrasive material supported upon a substrate of another material (Col. 9, lines 45-52), Greenman does not explicitly teach the abrasive elements comprise sandpaper.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of abrading devices, Cramer (US 7,048,618) discloses a tool comprising sandpaper (see Col. 5, line 56-Col. 6, line 41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sandpaper configuration as taught by Cramer into the invention of Greenman. Both Greenman and Cramer contemplate various grit sizes and selecting an appropriate grit to achieve a desired finish (see Col. 5, line 56-Col. 6, line 11 of Cramer and Col. 9, lines 44-52 of Greenman). Furthermore, Greenman intimates and suggests paper type abrasive elements, see at least the contemplation of prior art devices in Col. 1, lines 39-45 and 59-62. One would be motivated to combine in the teachings of Cramer not only because Greenman intimates and suggests a paper structure, but also because Cramer provides a species of abrasive material capable of performing the operations described by Greenman, with the benefit of permitting a wide variety of mounting configurations, which would enable a user to select an appropriate sandpaper.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 2, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the plurality of limiting members are disposed parallel to one another on the surface of the sanding plate to define a plurality of strip-shaped slot areas parallel to one another (see at least Figures 10-13, as well as Col. 9, lines 21-35 and 44-56 and 65-67; see also 886, 865).
Regarding claim 3, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches, further comprising at least one strip-shaped sandpaper (see Figures 12 and 13 of Greenman, as well as the combination statement as applied above);
wherein a depth of each of the plurality of strip-shaped slot areas is less than a thickness of the at least one strip-shaped sandpaper, wherein the thickness corresponds to a height direction of the at least one strip-shaped sandpaper (see at least Figures 12 and 13 of Greenman, as well as Col. 9, lines 20-57).
Regarding claim 4, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein each of the plurality of limiting members is a hard stop removably secured to the surface of the sanding plate by screws (wherein the limiting members LM in Reference Drawing 1 are each secured to the surface of the device, as shown in Figures 8-11, by screws, see at least Col. 8 lines 11-67).
Regarding claim 5, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches, wherein the plurality of limiting members are integrally formed with the surface of the sanding plate (wherein when assembled, plurality of limiting members as labeled in Reference Drawing 1 are a part of the apparatus as a whole, i.e. integrally formed under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein an aspect ratio (length to width) of the strip-shaped slot area is larger than 5 to 1 (Greenman: wherein the length of the abrasive pad 800 is about 1.50 inches, i.e. the length of each recess 865 is also 1.50 inches; wherein the width of each abrasive element 830 is about 0.10 inches, i.e. wherein the width of the recess is sized to accommodate and fit the respective element 830; wherein the length to width ratio of each recess 865 is this 1.50 to 0.10, i.e. 15 to 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the strip-shaped sandpaper is adhesively secured to the bottom of the strip-shaped slot area (Greenman: see Col. 9, lines 36-40 regarding adhesive securement).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the grinding sander is a flat plate sander, the sanding plate is a plane, and the movement comprises vibration in the plane (Greenman: see at least Figures 8-11 regarding the structure of the apparatus, as well as Col. 4, lines 10-35 describing reciprocating motion having an amplitude and frequency which are adjustable).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the grinding sander is a pneumatic sander (see pressurized air source as disclosed in Col. 6, lines 15-36; Col. 6, line 56-Col. 7, line 12).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the limiting member is a hard stop removably secured to the surface of the sanding plate by screws (wherein the limiting members LM in Reference Drawing 1 are each secured to the surface of the device, as shown in Figures 8-11, by screws, see at least Col. 8 lines 11-67).
Claim(s) 6-8, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenman (US 6,048,257) in view of Cramer (US 7,048,618), and in further view of Kloss (US 4,920,702).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 16, Greenman in view of Cramer teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Greenman does not explicitly teach a hook and loop fastener including a plurality of hook and loop areas, each of the hook and loop areas correspondingly covering a bottom surface of each strip-shaped slot area so that each strip-shaped sandpaper can be fixed to the plurality of hook and loop areas in the corresponding strip-shaped slot area with the hook and loop fastener.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of grinding devices, Kloss (US 4,920,702) teaches of attaching an abrasive element using hook and loop fastening (Col. 6, lines 5-17; see element 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include a hook and loop fastening relationship, as taught by Kloss, into the invention of Greenman, as the type of adhesive joining for mating the abrasive elements 830 within recesses 865. Further incorporation of the hook and loop fastener relationship would provide additional reinforcement to the abrasive elements while also allowing for switching out of abrasive elements, which is recognized as a benefit by Kolthoff (Col. 4, lines 21-37). This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a well-known fastener, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, the combination of modified Greenman in view of Kloss teaches incorporation of hook and loop fastening at the appropriate location, i.e. at a bottom surface of each strip-shaped slot area (87) such that the lamellas can be fixed to the plurality of hook and loop areas in the corresponding strip-shaped slot area with the hook and loop fastener.
Regarding claim 7, Greenman in view of Cramer and Kloss teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the hook and loop fastener further comprises a plurality of fastening areas sandwiched between the plurality of limiting members and the surface of the sanding plate (wherein the combination of Kloss into the invention of modified Greenman teaches this limitation, as the hook and loop fastener areas are within the recesses 865, i.e. between the limiting members as shown in annotated Figure 13; wherein the extension of the limiting members is above the area where the hook and loop fasteners are incorporated, and the sanding plate (i.e. the surface of the mounting shown in Figures 8-11) is opposite the limiting members, i.e. therein lies a sandwich arrangement).
Regarding claim 8, Greenman in view of Cramer and Kloss teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Greenman further teaches wherein the hook and loop fastener is a one-piece member (wherein the combination of Kloss into the invention of modified Greenman teaches this limitation; see at least member 10 of Kloss).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723